{"id":902,"date":"2009-09-01T01:11:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-01T01:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/cite\/2016\/02\/09\/article1-html-9\/"},"modified":"2016-06-04T01:45:09","modified_gmt":"2016-06-04T01:45:09","slug":"article1-html-9","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-9\/issue-4-09\/english-language-arts\/article1-html-9","title":{"rendered":"\u201cBecause I Know How to Use It\u201d: Integrating Technology Into Preservice English Teacher Reflective Practice"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
Reflective practice is an accepted component of today\u2019s teacher education programs. Teacher educators seek to integrate various forms of reflective practice throughout teacher preparation, acknowledging that reflection supports teachers\u2019 ability to analyze issues of teaching and learning from differing perspectives, as well as their efforts to make changes to practice and belief (Calderhead, 1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Opportunities abound for reflection in teacher education, from formal papers on assigned topics to collaborative discussions on educational experiences.<\/p>\n
One of the most common forms of reflection, however, is that of the reflection journal (Bain, Ballantyne, Packer, & Mills, 1999; Francis, 1995; Spalding & Wilson, 2002). Reflection journals allow preservice teachers to \u201cclarify and extend individual thoughts and concerns and provide\u2026a means of consistently supporting\u2026inquiry into their development as learners and teachers\u201d (Collier, 1999, p. 174). Boud (2001) also supports the use of journals for reflection, explaining that<\/p>\n
in learning terms, the journal is both the place where the events and experiences are recorded and the forum by which they are processed and re-formed. This working with events is intended as a way to make sense of the experiences that result, recognize the learning that results, and build a foundation for new experiences that will provoke new learning. (p. 10-11)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Electronic reflection is also relatively commonplace in teacher education programs. With variations on the implementation, teacher educators are incorporating different forms of technology into reflective practice, with implications for both preservice teachers\u2019 reflection and their understanding of technology (Germann, Young-Soo, & Patton, 2001; Koszalka, Grabowski, & McCarthy, 2003; Romano & Schwartz, 2005). The integration of reflection and technology supports the recognized need to develop technologically proficient teachers who can meet the demands of today\u2019s classrooms (Bell, 2001; McVee, Bailey, & Shanahan, 2008; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003). To do so, Mishra and Koehler (2006) have noted that teachers must develop pedagogical understandings of technology application to subject-specific instruction. Preservice teachers must have multiple opportunities to engage meaningfully with various forms of technology connected to classroom practice, student learning, and personal development during their university preparation (Bird & Rosaen, 2005; Dexter & Riedel, 2003; Lock, 2007).<\/p>\n
Meaningful engagement with technology during preparation supports preservice teachers in their efforts to develop the technological pedagogical content knowledge (or technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge [TPACK]; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) needed to understand \u201ccomplex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy and [use] this understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations\u201d (p. 1029) in their future teaching.<\/p>\n
English language arts education is no exception. English teacher educators incorporate varied reflective assignments (Margolis, 2002; Stockinger, 2007) and diverse technologies (Grabill & Hicks, 2005; Singer & Zeni, 2004; Young & Bush, 2004) throughout secondary English teacher preparation.<\/p>\n
As Swenson (2006) noted, English teachers must understand both how to use different forms of technology in the classroom and the possibilities and limitations created by that use. In order to examine critically the affordances and constraints of technology in the classroom, however, English teachers must be able to reflect on the use of technology to support their teaching and students\u2019 learning (Shoffner, 2007). Engaging preservice English teachers with reflection and technology, separately and collaboratively, supports the goal of developing English teachers who can effectively address the diversity of issues that arise in the teaching of English language arts.<\/p>\n
The integration of technology into reflective practice, however, encourages teacher educators to consider the role of technology in preservice teacher reflection. As Mishra and Koehler (2006) explained, \u201cTechnologies often come with their own imperatives that constrain the content that has to be covered and the nature of possible representations\u201d (p. 1025). Several questions arise when considering the constraints and possibilities offered by the use of different forms of technology in reflection. Which technology medium is likely to be used for reflective practice when preservice teachers have a choice? How do preservice teachers view the specific technology medium they choose for reflection? How might the technology medium chosen influence preservice teacher reflection?<\/p>\n
As an English teacher educator, I chose to explore these questions in a secondary English methods course by integrating technology into a reflection journal assignment. Preservice English teachers\u2019 choices of specific technology media for reflective practice were examined for satisfaction with their choice and understanding of the medium\u2019s influence on their reflection. The implications of the preservice English teachers\u2019 views on technology use for reflection were then explored, with attention to the choice of \u201ceasy\u201d forms of technology and the elements of journal length, choice of expression, and audience awareness in reflective practice.<\/p>\n
Informal Reflection in the Methods Course<\/p>\n
From fall 2006 to spring 2008, I taught a secondary English methods course as a required component in the English Education teacher preparation program of a large public university in the midwestern United States. In the methods course, preservice English teachers explored a range of issues related to the teaching and learning of English language arts through class discussions, course readings and assignments, and a required 20-hour practicum in the local schools. One specific component of the course was a reflective journaling assignment situated in informal reflection (Shoffner, 2008).<\/p>\n
Informal reflection is defined by the elements of practical theory, flexible structure, personal expression and communal interaction (Shoffner, 2008). In informal reflection, individuals are encouraged to draw on past experiences and current beliefs to interrogate their understanding of teaching and learning. Rather than structuring the resulting reflection through specific guidelines or explicit questions, reflection remains flexible, with gaps and variations in the final product allowed. The flexibility of informal reflection also extends to the form of reflection; the final product is not limited to a specific format or medium.<\/p>\n
The inclusion of the affective domain is also allowed in informal reflection; personally meaningfully topics and the resultant emotions attached to them are accepted as personal forms of expression. Lastly, informal reflection encourages collaborative communication during reflective practice, since \u201cinteraction with others offers alternative meanings, encourages new understandings and provides support to engage\u201d in reflection (Shoffner, 2008, p. 129).<\/p>\n
The Assignment<\/p>\n
In the methods course, preservice English teachers\u2019 reflective practice was developed through an informal reflection journal. This course component required preservice teachers to submit a weekly reflection throughout the semester, for a total of 12 reflections per student. Drawing on informal reflection\u2019s use of practical theory and personal expression, preservice teachers were free to determine their topics for reflection, as well as the length of their journal entries. As discussed in the methods course, any topic was acceptable if it contributed to understandings of and questions on the teaching and learning of English.<\/p>\n
The preservice English teachers created and maintained their reflection journals using their choice of technology medium. In keeping with informal reflection\u2019s flexibility, no specific medium was required; like the topic and length of the journal entries, this decision was open to individual choice. No technical instruction was provided for the preservice teachers, either, as they possessed familiarity with appropriate technology media from a required educational technology course taken earlier in their preparation program.<\/p>\n
Communal interaction, informal reflection\u2019s fourth element, was somewhat limited, in that the preservice English teachers were not required to share their reflection journals with an outside audience other than me (the professor for the course). They did have the option, however, of choosing a public medium that allowed for a wider audience; they could also share their reflection journals with classmates if they wished. A degree of communal interaction did take place, however, as I replied to each of the preservice teacher\u2019s weekly journal entries. To support and scaffold preservice teachers\u2019 reflections, these responses took the form of supportive comments, challenging questions, alternative interpretations, and suggestions for additional reading. The reflection journal entries were evaluated for completion only.<\/p>\n
Considering Technology in Informal Reflection<\/p>\n
To explore preservice English teachers\u2019 views on the integration of technology into reflective practice, I administered midsemester and end-of-semester evaluations in the methods course in fall 2006, spring 2007, fall 2007, and spring 2008. Both evaluations focused on the preservice teachers\u2019 views of the technology medium chosen for their informal reflection journal.<\/p>\n
Fifty-eight preservice English teachers completed one or both of the midsemester and end-of-semester evaluations, for a total of 115 evaluations. Fifty-five of the preservice teachers were undergraduates completing an English Education major leading to a bachelor\u2019s degree and secondary English teacher licensure. Three preservice teachers were postbaccalaureate students seeking secondary English licensure only or licensure in addition to master\u2019s degrees.<\/p>\n
On the evaluations, the preservice English teachers were asked to identify the electronic medium used for their informal reflection journal. They were then asked to provide the reason for their choice of medium, identify their level of satisfaction with that choice, and explain their level of satisfaction. Additionally, on the end-of-semester evaluations only, the preservice teachers were asked to consider the influence of their chosen medium on their reflective practice.<\/p>\n
Self-reported responses on the evaluation serve as the main data set for the study. The collected responses were analyzed at the conclusion of the spring 2008 semester for convergent themes and repeating patterns, which were, in turn, interpreted to offer explanations and consider meanings (as in Patton, 2002). Reflection journal entries are a secondary source of data, providing illustrative context and explanation to support the implications and conclusions emerging from the analysis of the main data set.<\/p>\n
Choosing a Technology Medium<\/p>\n
Of the various technology media the preservice English teachers could use for their informal reflection journals, they chose one of the following: an individual weblog, a personal webpage, a direct email to the professor, or electronic submission of a Microsoft Word document via email. It is important to note that the preservice English teachers were not limited to these particular forms of technology. The parameters of the assignment allowed the use of any technology medium for the reflection journal. In keeping with extended views of literacy, the preservice teachers were free to create journals consisting of or incorporating visual or auditory components, such as video blogs or podcasts. The forms of technology chosen for the assignment were familiar to the preservice teachers, however, either through personal use or university preparation. The teacher education program of study requires an introductory educational technology course in which these common forms of technology are addressed, if not also used.<\/p>\n
Although each of the four technology media was used every semester, electronic submission of a Word document was the most popular choice overall. Thirty-six of the preservice teachers chose an emailed Word document for their reflective journal, while 15 preservice teachers chose an individual weblog, the second most popular choice. Only four preservice teachers chose to use a direct email to the professor for their reflective practices, while three preservice teachers created and used a personal webpage. A semester breakdown of the preservice teachers\u2019 technology choices is presented in Table 1.<\/p>\n
Table 1<\/strong>
\nSemester Breakdown of Preservice Teachers\u2019 Technology Choices for Reflective Practice<\/p>\n\n